- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:45:25 +0200
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:49:51 +0200, Michael Nordman <michaeln at google.com> wrote: > That probably makes sense too in some use cases. Without practical > experience with this thing, its difficult to 'guess' which is of more > use. Really? It seems quite natural to specify a catch-all fallback namespace and still want some resources to hit the network. I.e., as I demonstrated with an example: FALLBACK: / /offline NETWORK: /request Now Ian suggested I could instead do FALLBACK: /request /request?fallback /offline ... which could certainly work but would make NETWORK redundant. You argued however that NETWORK was needed because "a fallback resource with a mock error or empty response is busy work" While I did not quite understand this reason I suppose having the additional fallback while a network error should be sufficient is not great and therefore I suggested giving non-wildcard NETWORK resources priority. You suggest this might make sense, but I've yet to see a good argument as to why the current approach makes sense. It certainly does not help with the example above. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 04:45:25 UTC